6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE
8 RYAN ADAMS,
9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C25-1372-TMC-SKV
10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 JENNIFER FISHER, et al.,
12 Defendants.
14 I. INTRODUCTION
15 This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Ryan Adams is 16 currently in the custody of the Washington Department of Corrections. Plaintiff submitted his civil 17 rights complaint to the Court for filing in July 2025 (Dkt. 1), and he thereafter submitted for the 18 Court’s consideration an application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkt. 5). 19 Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he had been denied adequate medical and/or mental health 20 care in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment and had been subjected to harmful 21 conditions of confinement relating to an improperly functioning ventilation system at the Monroe 22 Correctional Complex (“MCC”) – Intensive Management Unit (“IMU”), in violation of his rights 23 under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Dkt. 5-2 at 5-10. 1 Because of deficiencies in both Plaintiff’s IFP application and his complaint, this Court 2 declined to rule on the IFP application or to direct that the complaint be served on Defendants. See 3 Dkt. 6. Plaintiff was, however, granted leave to file an amended complaint correcting the specified 4 deficiencies. See id. Plaintiff has done neither and the time allotted Plaintiff to correct the
5 deficiencies in his original submissions has now passed. Accordingly, as discussed below, this 6 Court recommends the instant action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915A(b).
8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiff identified three claims for relief in his complaint. Plaintiff alleged in the first 10 count of his complaint that in June 2024 a mental health provider at the Washington State 11 Penitentiary (“WSP”) in Walla Walla, Washington, violated his Eighth Amendment rights when 12 she responded inappropriately to a nurse’s concern regarding Plaintiff’s unstable emotional state. 13 Dkt. 5-2 at 6. Plaintiff also alleged in his first count that in May 2025 a mental health provider at 14 MCC violated his Eighth Amendment rights when she responded inappropriately to two 15 incidents of self-harm. Id. Plaintiff also complained that the provider saw him infrequently 16 event though they were supposed to have sessions every two weeks. Id. Finally, Plaintiff 17 alleged that he repeatedly asked a mental health “lead” at MCC to assign him a new therapist, 18 but she refused despite being aware of the alleged inappropriate conduct of Plaintiff’s provider. 19 Id. at 6-7. 20 Plaintiff alleged in the second count of his complaint that MCC Lieutenant Fuller and an 21 unnamed MCC Superintendent violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to take 22 necessary action in response to his complaints of a faulty ventilation system at the MCC-IMU. 23 1 Dkt. 5-2 at 8-9. Plaintiff claimed the faulty ventilation system was “extremely loud,” had caused 2 him headaches, and had resulted in him “constant[ly] hacking up crud.” Id. 3 Plaintiff alleged in the third count of his complaint, that Dr. Collins, a psychiatrist at 4 MCC, had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by refusing to provide him a “snack” that
5 would reduce the physical side effects associated with mental health medications he has been 6 prescribed. See Dkt. 5-2 at 9-10. Plaintiff claimed that Dr. Collins knowingly caused him harm 7 by placing him in a position where he had to either quit taking his mental health medications or 8 continue to suffer the severe side effects associated with taking the medications without the 9 snack. Id. 10 Plaintiff identified the following Defendants in his complaint: WSP mental health 11 provider Jennifer Fisher; MCC mental health providers Tanya Brown and Lindsay McIntyre; 12 MCC Superintendent John Doe; and MCC Lieutenant Fuller. Dkt. 5-2 at 3-4. In his request for 13 relief, Plaintiff stated only that “I hope for a jury verdict.” Id. at 11. Elsewhere in his complaint, 14 specifically in relation to his Fourteenth Amendment claim, Plaintiff requested that the
15 ventilation system be fixed and that he be awarded damages. Id. at 9. 16 After reviewing Plaintiff’s submissions, this Court concluded that Plaintiff had neither 17 demonstrated that he qualified to proceed with this action IFP, nor had he stated a viable claim 18 for relief. Thus, on October 9, 2025, the Court issued an Order declining to grant Plaintiff leave 19 to proceed IFP or to direct service of the complaint on Defendants, but granting him leave to file 20 an amended complaint correcting specified deficiencies. See Dkt. 6. 21 As to Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court explained that Plaintiff, having had three or 22 more prior cases dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, was 23 precluded from proceeding with this action IFP absent a plausible allegation that he faced 1 imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the action. See Dkt. 6 at 4-5 2 (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). The 3 Court noted that Plaintiff had not made any specific allegation of imminent danger in his 4 complaint and that the facts alleged therein lacked sufficient clarity and specificity to give rise to
5 a plausible inference of imminent danger. Id. at 5. The Court thus declined to grant Plaintiff 6 leave to proceed IFP but explained that he would be afforded an opportunity to make the 7 requisite showing of imminent danger in an amended complaint. Id. 8 As to Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court first noted that Plaintiff had asserted a claim against 9 one Defendant, Jennifer Fisher, that appeared unrelated to the claims asserted against the 10 remaining Defendants. Dkt. 6 at 7. Plaintiff was advised that any claim against Ms. Fisher must 11 be asserted in a separate action. Id. The Court also noted that Plaintiff had asserted a claim 12 against his psychiatrist, Dr. Collins, but he had not identified Dr. Collins as a Defendant in the 13 appropriate sections of his complaint. Id. Plaintiff was advised that if he wished to pursue a 14 claim against Dr. Collins he would have to properly identify Dr. Collins as a defendant in his
15 pleading. 16 As to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical and mental health care claims, the Court 17 explained that the facts alleged were insufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to such claims. 18 See Dkt. 6 at 7-9. The Court further explained, with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 19 Amendment conditions of confinement claim relating to the MCC-IMU ventilation system, that 20 the claim arose under the Eighth Amendment, and not the Fourteenth Amendment, and that 21 Plaintiff’s allegations in support of this claim were vague and conclusory and wholly insufficient 22 to state a constitutional claim against the identified Defendants. Id. at 9-11. 23 1 Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint correcting the noted 2 deficiencies. Dkt. 6 at 11. Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to make an adequate showing of 3 imminent danger in any amended pleading, the Court would recommend that his IFP application 4 be denied and that he be required to pay the filing fee before proceeding with this action. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE
8 RYAN ADAMS,
9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C25-1372-TMC-SKV
10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 JENNIFER FISHER, et al.,
12 Defendants.
14 I. INTRODUCTION
15 This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Ryan Adams is 16 currently in the custody of the Washington Department of Corrections. Plaintiff submitted his civil 17 rights complaint to the Court for filing in July 2025 (Dkt. 1), and he thereafter submitted for the 18 Court’s consideration an application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkt. 5). 19 Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he had been denied adequate medical and/or mental health 20 care in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment and had been subjected to harmful 21 conditions of confinement relating to an improperly functioning ventilation system at the Monroe 22 Correctional Complex (“MCC”) – Intensive Management Unit (“IMU”), in violation of his rights 23 under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Dkt. 5-2 at 5-10. 1 Because of deficiencies in both Plaintiff’s IFP application and his complaint, this Court 2 declined to rule on the IFP application or to direct that the complaint be served on Defendants. See 3 Dkt. 6. Plaintiff was, however, granted leave to file an amended complaint correcting the specified 4 deficiencies. See id. Plaintiff has done neither and the time allotted Plaintiff to correct the
5 deficiencies in his original submissions has now passed. Accordingly, as discussed below, this 6 Court recommends the instant action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915A(b).
8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiff identified three claims for relief in his complaint. Plaintiff alleged in the first 10 count of his complaint that in June 2024 a mental health provider at the Washington State 11 Penitentiary (“WSP”) in Walla Walla, Washington, violated his Eighth Amendment rights when 12 she responded inappropriately to a nurse’s concern regarding Plaintiff’s unstable emotional state. 13 Dkt. 5-2 at 6. Plaintiff also alleged in his first count that in May 2025 a mental health provider at 14 MCC violated his Eighth Amendment rights when she responded inappropriately to two 15 incidents of self-harm. Id. Plaintiff also complained that the provider saw him infrequently 16 event though they were supposed to have sessions every two weeks. Id. Finally, Plaintiff 17 alleged that he repeatedly asked a mental health “lead” at MCC to assign him a new therapist, 18 but she refused despite being aware of the alleged inappropriate conduct of Plaintiff’s provider. 19 Id. at 6-7. 20 Plaintiff alleged in the second count of his complaint that MCC Lieutenant Fuller and an 21 unnamed MCC Superintendent violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to take 22 necessary action in response to his complaints of a faulty ventilation system at the MCC-IMU. 23 1 Dkt. 5-2 at 8-9. Plaintiff claimed the faulty ventilation system was “extremely loud,” had caused 2 him headaches, and had resulted in him “constant[ly] hacking up crud.” Id. 3 Plaintiff alleged in the third count of his complaint, that Dr. Collins, a psychiatrist at 4 MCC, had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by refusing to provide him a “snack” that
5 would reduce the physical side effects associated with mental health medications he has been 6 prescribed. See Dkt. 5-2 at 9-10. Plaintiff claimed that Dr. Collins knowingly caused him harm 7 by placing him in a position where he had to either quit taking his mental health medications or 8 continue to suffer the severe side effects associated with taking the medications without the 9 snack. Id. 10 Plaintiff identified the following Defendants in his complaint: WSP mental health 11 provider Jennifer Fisher; MCC mental health providers Tanya Brown and Lindsay McIntyre; 12 MCC Superintendent John Doe; and MCC Lieutenant Fuller. Dkt. 5-2 at 3-4. In his request for 13 relief, Plaintiff stated only that “I hope for a jury verdict.” Id. at 11. Elsewhere in his complaint, 14 specifically in relation to his Fourteenth Amendment claim, Plaintiff requested that the
15 ventilation system be fixed and that he be awarded damages. Id. at 9. 16 After reviewing Plaintiff’s submissions, this Court concluded that Plaintiff had neither 17 demonstrated that he qualified to proceed with this action IFP, nor had he stated a viable claim 18 for relief. Thus, on October 9, 2025, the Court issued an Order declining to grant Plaintiff leave 19 to proceed IFP or to direct service of the complaint on Defendants, but granting him leave to file 20 an amended complaint correcting specified deficiencies. See Dkt. 6. 21 As to Plaintiff’s IFP application, the Court explained that Plaintiff, having had three or 22 more prior cases dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, was 23 precluded from proceeding with this action IFP absent a plausible allegation that he faced 1 imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed the action. See Dkt. 6 at 4-5 2 (citing Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). The 3 Court noted that Plaintiff had not made any specific allegation of imminent danger in his 4 complaint and that the facts alleged therein lacked sufficient clarity and specificity to give rise to
5 a plausible inference of imminent danger. Id. at 5. The Court thus declined to grant Plaintiff 6 leave to proceed IFP but explained that he would be afforded an opportunity to make the 7 requisite showing of imminent danger in an amended complaint. Id. 8 As to Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court first noted that Plaintiff had asserted a claim against 9 one Defendant, Jennifer Fisher, that appeared unrelated to the claims asserted against the 10 remaining Defendants. Dkt. 6 at 7. Plaintiff was advised that any claim against Ms. Fisher must 11 be asserted in a separate action. Id. The Court also noted that Plaintiff had asserted a claim 12 against his psychiatrist, Dr. Collins, but he had not identified Dr. Collins as a Defendant in the 13 appropriate sections of his complaint. Id. Plaintiff was advised that if he wished to pursue a 14 claim against Dr. Collins he would have to properly identify Dr. Collins as a defendant in his
15 pleading. 16 As to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical and mental health care claims, the Court 17 explained that the facts alleged were insufficient to satisfy the standard applicable to such claims. 18 See Dkt. 6 at 7-9. The Court further explained, with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 19 Amendment conditions of confinement claim relating to the MCC-IMU ventilation system, that 20 the claim arose under the Eighth Amendment, and not the Fourteenth Amendment, and that 21 Plaintiff’s allegations in support of this claim were vague and conclusory and wholly insufficient 22 to state a constitutional claim against the identified Defendants. Id. at 9-11. 23 1 Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint correcting the noted 2 deficiencies. Dkt. 6 at 11. Plaintiff was advised that if he failed to make an adequate showing of 3 imminent danger in any amended pleading, the Court would recommend that his IFP application 4 be denied and that he be required to pay the filing fee before proceeding with this action. Id.
5 Plaintiff was further advised that if he failed to timely file an amended complaint correcting the 6 identified deficiencies, the Court would recommend this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 7 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), regardless of whether Plaintiff was able to satisfy the Court that he qualified 8 to proceed IFP. Id. 9 To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Because Plaintiff has not 10 demonstrated that he qualifies to proceed with this action IFP and because, in any event, he has 11 not presented the Court with a pleading which states a viable claim for relief, this action must be 12 dismissed. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, this Court recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 5-2) and
15 this action be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The Court further 16 recommends that Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP (Dkt. 5) be denied as moot. A proposed 17 Order accompanies this Report and Recommendation. 18 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and 19 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 20 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 21 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 22 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may be 23 1 filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be ready 2 for consideration by the District Judge on December 16, 2025. 3 DATED this 25th day of November, 2025.
5 A S. KATE VAUGHAN 6 United States Magistrate Judge
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23